I have been following the thread but haven't seen it already posted and I guess theres a fair amount of pages. Just thought I'd share a short, funny video about Liz Truss that some people might like thats all. It made me laugh so I thought it might make others laugh aswell. But clearly that was a mistake.You were the third person to post it. Just saying like, might be an idea to read the thread before chucking in a rubbish meme.
DO what you want of course but I never click on that stuff as I can make my
own jokes anywayz. Satire is dead or sommat.
The OBR is a neoliberal enforcer set up by George Osborne guys.
That body language is screaming 'awful meeting, can't even look at each other. As soon as we get away from the cameras we can start effing and jeffing'.
While its fun to watch and everything, it's worth remembering that most of the institutions which have been kicking up a stink these past few days would be kicking up a similar stink against any transformational programme of government we'd like to happen too.Kind of the point surely?
I think the really worrying thing is your idea they might see this as that final adjustment where the welfare state is wiped out and public spending permanently cut below the bone. You could be right that through some mixture of ideology and Naomi Klein type idea of crisis as opportunity, they could be seeing an end game in all this. And certainly, markets would be happy to see that 'reassurance'. It's just how do they think they will carry it off politically? They very much risk reviving the left and/or working class protest and will also be hit with the protest of those with mortgages. I can't see Labour sustaining anything like the leads they have now but equally, 10%+ leads are normally the point where you think about changing leaders or hit the panic button.I had assumed Truss would use the OBR meeting to provide cover and to say following discussions the tax cut for those at the top was being delayed to next April and that the OBR had agreed to work with the CX to cost how spending cuts would pay for the tax cuts etc and this would be presented to the HoC etc. Doesn't look like it though....incredibly bad political judgement if so.
btw, effing and jeffing is a phrase I haven't heard for years. Time to bring it back...
Walks in..48 minutes. Taking out the time to sign in, pleasantries before and after the meeting, that's probably about 30 minutes of actual conversation. wtf. this is actually quite serious guys.
This meeting was just a bit of political theatre to be seen to be doing something without doing anything. The OBR offered to do a report, was asked not to. Economy collapsed. Now they've been asked to do a report. They'll have it ready by next week. Truss/Kwarteng say they'll publish it 23rd November. Could've all been done with a few emails.48 minutes. Taking out the time to sign in, pleasantries before and after the meeting, that's probably about 30 minutes of actual conversation. wtf. this is actually quite serious guys.
Corbyn would have been worse is the dumbest defence going. Maybe he would or maybe he wouldn't but he never got to be PM. Saying that the current shitshow is OK because we (might) have dodged a worst shitshow is the ultimate in whataboutery.
Yep, even those who might have been thinking about launching a small business will be faced with higher interest rates. And a fair proportion of the rest of the population will be missing meals and getting the electric and gas cut off.I don’t get it. What is the intended end point for this. Do they genuinely not understand that if people haven’t the money to buy even the basics we won’t be able to “kick start the economy”.
I know the stupid is in full effect here but even if we accept that this is just a mathematical formula and the real life effects are invisible to them, the way they’ve applied the formula doesn’t make sense.
What do the Trussers actually think is going to happen next? What is their most optimistic assumption about their intended outcomes?
If we all die in a ditch there won’t be anyone left to tax. Their money machine will grind to a halt.
I don’t get it. What is the intended end point for this. Do they genuinely not understand that if people haven’t the money to buy even the basics we won’t be able to “kick start the economy”.
I know the stupid is in full effect here but even if we accept that this is just a mathematical formula and the real life effects are invisible to them, the way they’ve applied the formula doesn’t make sense.
What do the Trussers actually think is going to happen next? What is their most optimistic assumption about their intended outcomes?
If we all die in a ditch there won’t be anyone left to tax. Their money machine will grind to a halt.
It's a case of admit defeat or plough on regardless, like Putin.
Even Dan Snow is taking the piss.
Trussnomics - cut taxes, raise borrowing, Magic! - was clearly signalled in the early tory leadership debates. This is what the tories voted for.Not the fall out, the idea, the “mini-budget” . They didn’t formulate that with the intention to fuck it uo. They made that plan because they thought it would work in some way. So what did they think it would do?
Setting aside the question of incompetence and ineptitude etc. what was the intention here? What did they think was actually going to happen as a result of this “financial intervention“.?
Why was Truss floated as a candidate at all if she was known to be this inept? So she must have been seen to have some kind of substance, right? Or is that wrong?
Or is this all and only KK’s idea and he’s the totally inept one? If so, was it given the nod?
What am I missing here?
Or am I mistaken in assuming they had any end point in mind? If so, what was the purpose of this ?
Is this a stupid question?
Trussnomics - cut taxes, raise borrowing, Magic! - was clearly signalled in the early tory leadership debates. This is what the tories voted for.
To use the analogy in that tweet posted by Jeff Robinson
Why did they set fire to the house in the first place? What was the purpose of that? What did they think would happen?
Madness and stupidity is not the right answer. They had some intention. What was that intention.
pure arrogance on both of them wanted to be seen as Maggie spiritual successor
I think you may be thinking a bit too deeply about this. The desired outcome of Truss saying that in the leadership debates was to become prime minister. Clearly the desired outcome of actually following through with it wasn't economic chaos and 30 points behind in the polls. That can be put down to stupidity, I would think.Yes, but what is the intent behind this general policy.
What do they intend as the result from this kind of foundational deconstruction.
What is the desired outcome.
Thatcher broke everything in her first couple of years in power by following dogmatically the mad economic doctrine of monetarism - subsequently reversed cos it didn't work. They are doing a Thatcher.So why didn’t they just do Thatcher then?
Even I know Thatcher would be less destructive than this. Because this just breaks everything. Thatcherism has pulls and toggles and levers and cogs and pulleys that keep the machine going, even if that machine chews up a substantial proportion of the citizenry there is enough benefit that it can at least keep itself going.
Am I asking a stupid question?
Trussnomics - cut taxes, raise borrowing, Magic! - was clearly signalled in the early tory leadership debates. This is what the tories voted for.
I wrote a long answer but binned it. Short answer is they seem to believe in it. That this will produce growth in the economy.So why didn’t they just do Thatcher then?
Even I know Thatcher would be less destructive than this. Because this just breaks everything. Thatcherism has pulls and toggles and levers and cogs and pulleys that keep the machine going, even if that machine chews up a substantial proportion of the citizenry there is enough benefit that it can at least keep itself going.
Am I asking a stupid question?